Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 24, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Indian Wind Energy Association vs Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited ... on 14 November, 2017

Equivalent citations: AIR 2018 GUJARAT 42

Bench: R.Subhash Reddy, Vipul M. Pancholi

                    C/LPA/1914/2017                                                    JUDGMENT



                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                            LETTERS PATENT APPEAL  NO. 1914 of 2017

                       In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.  19312 of 2017
                                            With 
                             CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14244 of 2017
                                              In    
                           LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1914 of 2017
          

         FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: 
          
         HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. R.SUBHASH REDDY
          
         and
         HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
         =========================================

         1      Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see                            Yes
                the judgment ?

         2      To be referred to the Reporter or not ?                                           Yes

         3      Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the                           No
                judgment ?

         4      Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as                       Yes
                to   the   interpretation  of   the   Constitution  of   India  or   any 
                order made thereunder ?

         =============================================
                     INDIAN WIND ENERGY ASSOCIATION....Appellant(s)
                                         Versus
              GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LIMITED (GUVNL)  &  3....Respondent(s)
         =============================================
         Appearance:
         MR MIHIR THAKORE, SR. ADVOCATE WITH MR AMIT K DAVE, ADVOCATE for 
         the Appellant(s) No. 1
         MR KT DAVE, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1
         MR KAMAL TRIVEDI, SR. ADVOCATE WITH MR PREMAL R JOSHI, CAVEATOR 
         for the Respondent(s) No. 1
         =============================================

             CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. R.SUBHASH REDDY
                    and
                    HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
          


                                                    Page 1 of 23

HC-NIC                                           Page 1 of 23      Created On Tue Nov 14 22:56:33 IST 2017
                     C/LPA/1914/2017                                                   JUDGMENT



                                            Date : 14/11/2017
          
                                 ORAL JUDGMENT

  (PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. R.SUBHASH REDDY) [1] This appeal, under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, is filed by  the   appellant   herein   ­   original   petitioner   in   Special   Civil   Application  No.19312   of   2017,   which   was   filed   under   Article   226   and   227   of   the  Constitution of India, aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge  dated  03­06/11/2017.    By the aforesaid  order,  the learned  Single  Judge  dismissed the petition filed by the appellant herein - original petitioner.  [2] Above   petition   was   filed   with   the   prayers,   which   read   as  under :­ 7(A) This   Hon'ble   Court   may   be   pleased   to   admit   and   allow   this   petition.

(B) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue writ of certiorari or   any   other   appropriate   writ   to   quash   and   set   aside   the   entire   competitive bidding process that has come to be initiated by the   respondents, in particular by the respondent No.1, as well as the   impugned   order   dated   6/10/2017   at   "Annexure­A"   passed   by   the respondent No.2, approving the bidding process. (C) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition,   this   Hon'ble   Court   may   be   pleased   to   stay   the   operation,   implementation and execution of order of the Gujarat Electricity   Regulatory   Commission,   dated   06/10/2017   as   well   as   the   competitive bidding process initiated by the respondent no.1. (D) To pass such other and further orders necessary in the interest of   justice."





                                                   Page 2 of 23

HC-NIC                                          Page 2 of 23      Created On Tue Nov 14 22:56:33 IST 2017
                     C/LPA/1914/2017                                                   JUDGMENT



         [3]             The appellant herein is a Association representing the interest 

of stakeholders in the wind energy sector across various States of India.  In  the petition, the petitioner has questioned the action of respondent no.1 in  imitating competitive bidding process in exercise of powers conferred under  Section 63 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and also it has questioned the order  dated 06.10.2017 passed by the Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission.  By   the  aforesaid  order  dated  06.10.2017,  3rd  respondent    ­ Commission  granted approval to the bidding process undertaken by the 1st  respondent  for the purpose of fixation of tariff. 

[4] Before we proceed further, we deem it appropriate to refer in  brief,   object   and   reasons   of   the   Electricity   Act,   2003   and   the   relevant  provisions   of   the   said   Act,   which   are   necessary   for   the   disposal   of   this  appeal. 

[4.1] The Electricity Act, 2003 is central piece of legislation, which  is enacted with a object to promote competition in electricity industry, and  to protect the interest of the consumers, as also to provide an independent  and transparent regulatory mechanism by creating regulatory commission.  The  aspect   of  electricity  power   generation,  transmission  and   distribution  was   undertaken   by   the   erstwhile   Gujarat   Electricity   Board.   After  enforcement   of   provisions   under   Electricity   Act,   2003,   activities   of  generation,   transmission,   distribution,   bulk   power   purchase   and   supply  undertaken by the erstwhile Gujarat Electricity Board have been assigned to  Page 3 of 23 HC-NIC Page 3 of 23 Created On Tue Nov 14 22:56:33 IST 2017 C/LPA/1914/2017 JUDGMENT seven separate functional entities.  Function of bulk  purchase and bulk sale  of power is conferred on 1st respondent - Gujarat  Urja Vikas Nigam Limited  (GUVNL).  Under the scheme  of the said Act,  distribution companies have  to  procure  power  from  Renewable   Energy  Sources   as   per   the  provisions  contained under Section 81(1)(e) of the Electricity Act and also in terms of  Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission  GERC (Procurement  of Energy  from  Renewable  Energy  Sources)  Regulations,  2010  which  are  amended  from time to time.

[4.2] Part   VII   of   the   Electricity   Act,   2003   deals   with   tariff  regulations,   determination   of   tariff,     determination   of   tariff   by   bidding  process, procedure for tariff order etc.  Section 61,62 and 63 of the said Act  reads as under :­ "61. Tariff regulation The Appropriate Commission shall, subject to the provisions of   this Act, specify the terms and conditions for the determination   of   tariff,   and   in   doing   so,   shall   be   guided   by   the   following,   namely :­

(a)   the   principles   and   methodologies   specified   by   the   Central   Commission   for   determination   of   the   tariff   applicable   to   generating companies and transmission licensees;

(b)   the   generation,   transmission,   distribution   and   supply   of   electricity are conducted on commercial principles;

(c)  the factors  which  would   encourage  competition,  efficiency,   economical use of the resources, good performance and optimum  investments;



                                                   Page 4 of 23

HC-NIC                                          Page 4 of 23      Created On Tue Nov 14 22:56:33 IST 2017
          C/LPA/1914/2017                                                    JUDGMENT




(d) safeguarding of consumers' interest and at the same time,   recovery of the cost of electricity in a reasonable manner;

(e) the principles rewarding efficiency in performance;

(f) multi­year tariff principles;

(g)   that   the   tariff   progressively   reflects   the   cost   of   supply   of   electricity   and   also   reduces   cross­subsidies   in   the   manner  specified by the Appropriate Commission;

(h) the promotion of co­generation and generation of electricity   from renewable sources of energy;

(i) the National Electricity Policy and tariff policy :

Provided   that   the   terms   and   conditions   for   determination   of   tariff   under   the   Electricity   (Supply)   Act,   1948,   the   Electricity   Regulatory Commission Act, 1998 and the enactments specified   in the Schedule as they stood immediately before the appointed   date, shall continue to apply for a period of one year or until the   terms and conditions for tariff are specified under this section,   whichever is earlier.

62. Determination of tariff (1)  The  Appropriate  Commission  shall  determine  the tariff  in   accordance with the provisions of this Act for ­

(a)   supply   of   electricity   by   a   generating   company   to   a   distribution licensee :

Provided   that   the   Appropriate   Commission   may,   in   case   of   shortage of supply of electricity, fix the minimum and maximum  ceiling of tariff for sale or purchase of electricity in pursuance of   an agreement, entered into between a generating company and a  licensee or between licensees, for a period not exceeding one year   to ensure reasonable prices of electricity;
(b) transmission of electricity;
(c) wheeling of electricity;
Page 5 of 23

HC-NIC Page 5 of 23 Created On Tue Nov 14 22:56:33 IST 2017 C/LPA/1914/2017 JUDGMENT

(d) retail sale of electricity :

Provided that in case of distribution of electricity in the same   area   by   two   or   more   distribution   licensees,   the   Appropriate  Commission may, for promoting competition among distribution   licensees,   fix   only   maximum   ceiling   of   tariff   for   retail   sale   of   electricity.
(2)  The   Appropriate   Commission   may  require   a  licensee   or  a   generating   company   to   furnish   separate   details,   as   may   be   specified in respect of generation, transmission and distribution   for determination of tariff.
(3)  The Appropriate Commission shall  not, while  determining   the tariff under this Act, show undue preference to any consumer   of electricity but may differentiate according to the consumer's   load   factor,   power   factor,   voltage,   total   consumption   of  electricity during any specified period or the time at which the   supply is required or the geographical position of any area, the   nature   of   supply   and   the   purpose   for   which   the   supply   is   required.
(4) No tariff or part of any tariff may ordinarily be amended,   more   frequently   than   once   in   any   financial   year,   except   in  respect of any changes expressly  permitted under the terms of   any fuel surcharge formula as may be specified. (5)   The   Commission   may   require   a   licensee   or   a   generating   company to comply with such procedure as may be specified for   calculating   the   expected   revenues   from   the   tariff   and   charges  which he or it is permitted to recover.
(6) If any licensee or a generating company recovers a price or   charge   exceeding   the   tariff   determined   under   this   section,   the   excess amount shall be recoverable by the person who has paid   such price or charge along with interest equivalent to the bank  rate   without   prejudice   to   any   other   liability   incurred   by   the   Page 6 of 23 HC-NIC Page 6 of 23 Created On Tue Nov 14 22:56:33 IST 2017 C/LPA/1914/2017 JUDGMENT licensee.

63.   Determination   of   tariff   by   bidding   process  ­  Notwithstanding   anything   contained   in   section   62,   the   Appropriate Commission shall adopt the tariff if such tariff has   been   determined   through   transparent   process   of   bidding   in  accordance   with   the   guidelines   issued   by   the   Central   Government."

[4.3] Regulatory  Commissions  are constituted under part X of the  Electricity  Act.  Section  76 to 109 of  the  Electricity  Act,  2003  deals  with  provisions   relating   to   constitution,   qualification   for   appointment   of  members   of   Central   Commission,   qualification   for   appointment   of  Chairperson and members of State Commission and functions of the State  Commission etc.   [4.4] Section   86   of   the   Act   enumerates   functions   of   the   State  Commission.  Under Section 86(1), the State Government is empowered to  determine the tariff   for generation, supply, transmission and wheeling of  electricity, wholesale, bulk or retail, as the case may be within the State.  Under provisio to Section 86(1)(a),  where open access has been permitted  to a category of consumers under section 42, the State Commission shall  determine only the wheeling charges and surcharge thereon, if any, for the  said category of consumers.  





                                              Page 7 of 23

HC-NIC                                      Page 7 of 23     Created On Tue Nov 14 22:56:33 IST 2017
                    C/LPA/1914/2017                                                JUDGMENT



         [4.5]          Under section 86(1)(b), the State Commission is empowered 

to   regulate   electricity   purchase   and   procurement   process   of   distribution  licensees including the price at which electricity shall be procured from the  generating   companies   or   licensees   or   from   other   sources   through  agreements  for purchase  of power for distribution  and supply within the  State;

[4.6] Under section 3 of the Electricity Act, Central Government is  empowered from time to time, prepare the national electricity policy and  tariff policy in consultation with the State Government and the Authority  for development of power system based on optimal utilization of resources  such   as   coal,   natural   gas,   nuclear   substance   or   materials,   hydro   and  renewable   sources   of   energy.   Central  Government  is   also   empowered   to  publish the national electricity policy and tariff policy from time to time.  [5] Ministry of Power, Union of India has notified tariff policy by  resolution   dated   28.01.2016.   Clause   6.4   of   the   policy   deals   with   the  provisions relating to renewable sources of energy generation including co­ generation from renewable energy sources. Clause 6.4.2 of the policy reads  as under :­ "(2) States shall endeavour to procure power from renewable   energy source through competitive bidding to keep the tariff low,   except from the waste to energy plants. Procurement of power by   Distribution Licensee from renewable sources from projects above   the notified capacity, shall be done through competitive bidding   Page 8 of 23 HC-NIC Page 8 of 23 Created On Tue Nov 14 22:56:33 IST 2017 C/LPA/1914/2017 JUDGMENT process, from the date to be notified by the Central Government.              However, till such notification, any such procurement of   power   from   renewable   energy   sources   projects,   may   be   done   under section 62 of the Electricity Act, 2003.  While determining   the tariff from such sources, the Appropriate Commission shall   take into account the solar radiation and wind intensity which  may   differ   from   area   to   area   to   ensure   that   the   benefits   are   passed on the consumers."

[6]  Vide order No.2 of 2016, Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission,  Gandhinagar has passed order in the matter of determination of tariff for  procurement of power by the distribution licensees and others from wind  power projects in exercise of powers conferred under Section 62(1)(a) of  the   Electricity   Act,   2003.   The   State   Commission's   decision   so   far   as  renewable   energy   to   the   extent   relevant,   for   the   purpose   of   this   appeal  reads as under :­ "The Commission has observed that, as per the provisions of the   Tariff   policy,   procurement   from   renewable   energy   projects   by   distribution   licensees   is   recommended   through   competitive   bidding to keep the tariff low. However, such procurement has to   be   done   through   competitive   bidding   from   the   date   of   such   notification by the Central Government.

In view of above, the Commission decides that the distribution   licensees may procure electricity from the wind power projects at   the tariff determined by the commission under Section 62 of the   Act under this order or may carry out competitive bidding for   procurement   of   electricity   from   wind   power   projects   through   Page 9 of 23 HC-NIC Page 9 of 23 Created On Tue Nov 14 22:56:33 IST 2017 C/LPA/1914/2017 JUDGMENT transparent process of bidding under section 63 of the Act.  The  distribution   licensees   may   approach   the   Commission   for   adoption   of   the   tariff   discovered   through   competitive   bidding   process. In such cases, the tariff determined by the Commission   in this order will act as a ceiling tariff."

By the aforesaid order, the Commission has determined wind  power tariff at Rs.4.19 per kWh. 

[7] 1st  respondent   Company   on   behalf   of   its   four   subsidiary  distribution   companies   initiated   the   process   by   publishing   the   notice  inviting tenders for procurement of 500 MW grid connected with the power  from   wind   projects   through   competitive   bidding   process   on   15.06.2017,  under the intimation to the 3rd respondent vide letter dated 16.07.2017 for  the   purpose   of   fixation   of   tariff   under   Section   63   of   the   Act.     Tender  documents  were  also published  on website.  Last  date  for  bid submission  was 10.07.2017.  Technical bid opening of the tenders was on 11.07.2017  and the financial bid opening was on 17.07.2017.  It appears that based on  the request made by the various prospective bidders,   during pre­bidding  meeting, 1st  respondent has extended the bid deadline from time to time.  In  the  meantime,  letter  dated   20.07.2017  was  also   addressed  by   the  3rd  respondent  ­ Commission and referring to the provisions under Section 63  read with Section 86(1)(b) of the Act, advised 1st respondent to get proper  regulatory   approval   from   the   Commission   by   filing   the   petition   GERC  (Conduct   of   Business   Regulations),   2004.     In   view   of   said   letter   of   the  Page 10 of 23 HC-NIC Page 10 of 23 Created On Tue Nov 14 22:56:33 IST 2017 C/LPA/1914/2017 JUDGMENT Commission, 1st  respondent has filed the petition being No. 1682 of 2017  before the 3rd respondent Commission under Section 63 read with Section  86(1)(b)  of  the  Act  seeking  approval  of  the  competitive  bidding  process  initiated   by   it.     3rd  respondent   -   Commission   after   considering   National  Tariff Policy, draft guidelines issued by the Central  Government,  granted  approval   vide   proceeding   dated   06.10.2017   for   the   competitive   bidding  process undertaken by 1st respondent for fixation of tariff under Section 63  of the Act.

[8] Initiation of competitive bidding process for fixation of tariff  under   Section   63   of   the   Act   and   approval   vide   order   dated   06.10.2017  passed by the 3rd respondent was challenged in the petition by the appellant  herein mainly on the ground that in absence of final guidelines issued by  the Central  Government  under Section 63 of the Act, no bidding  process  could be initiated for the purpose of fixation of tariff under section 63 of  the Act. It is also the case of the appellant herein that such bidding process  initiated is contrary to the policy notified by the Ministry of Power, Union  of India in exercise of powers under Section 3 of the Act.  [9] Learned Single Judge rejected the contention of the appellant  and held that in view of the existing draft guidelines issued by the Central  Government,   the   respondents   are   empowered   to   initiate   competitive  bidding   process   for   fixation   of   tariff,   which   is   approved   by   the   3rd  respondent  - Commission  vide order dated  06.10.2017.  It is held by the  Page 11 of 23 HC-NIC Page 11 of 23 Created On Tue Nov 14 22:56:33 IST 2017 C/LPA/1914/2017 JUDGMENT learned Single Judge that such steps taken by the respondent  authorities  are   in   conformity   with   the   objects   of   the   Act   and   3rd  respondent   acted  within the power conferred under Section 86 of the Act. [10] Heard   learned   Senior   Counsel   Mr.   Mihir   Thakore   for   the  appellant   and   Mr.   Kamal   Trivedi,   learned   Senior   Counsel   appearing   for  respondent no.1 and 2 at the stage of admission.

[11] Mr.   Thakore,   learned   Senior   Counsel   appearing   for   the  appellant by referring to the order under challenge passed by the learned  Single   Judge   and   other   materials   placed   on   record   submitted   that   in  absence of guidelines issued by the Central Government, there is no power  upon   respondent   no.1,2   and   3   for   determination   of   tariff   by   bidding  process. Such action on the part of the respondents is contrary to the policy  notified by the Central Government. It is submitted that in absence of final  guidelines   by   the   Central   Government,   respondent   No.1   could   not   have  initiated nor respondent No.3 - Commission could have approved bidding  process  initiated  by  respondent  No.1  under   Section   63  of   the   Act.    It  is  submitted that in absence of any notification and directions issued in the  policy by the Central Government, procurement of power from renewable  energy   source   projects   has   to   be   done   under   section   62   of   the   Act.     In  support   of  his   argument,  reliance   is   placed   on   the   following   judgments,  which were also relied before the learned Single Judge.





                                                   Page 12 of 23

HC-NIC                                           Page 12 of 23     Created On Tue Nov 14 22:56:33 IST 2017
                    C/LPA/1914/2017                                                  JUDGMENT




                        [1]      In   the   case   of   Energy   Watchdog,   Prayas   (Energy 

Group), Punjab State Power Corporation Limited v/s.  Central  Electricity Regulatory Commission and Ors. Reported in 2017  (4) Scale 580.

[2] Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of  Gujarat   Urja  Vikas   Nigam   Limited   v/s.  Solar  Semiconductor  Power Co. (I) Pvt. Limited and Ors. dated 25.10.2017 in Civil  Appeal No.6399 of 2016.

[12] On   the   other   hand,   it   is   submitted   by   Mr.Kamal   Trivedi,  learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 that there are  already draft guidelines issued by the Central Government and in view of  the same, 3rd respondent - Commission while passing the order considered  the plea of the appellant Association and rejected the same by recording  valid   reasons.   It   is   submitted   that   draft   guidelines   issued   by   Central  Government itself recognized that in case of ongoing bidding process, if the  bids have already been submitted by the bidder prior to the notification of  the guidelines and /or SBDs and if there are any deviations between  the  guidelines and/or the SBDs and the RfS, PPA, PSA, the Rfs, PPA and the  PSA shall prevail.

[12.1] Further, it is brought to our notice that similar order is passed  on 10.07.2017 by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission and  the appellant Association has questioned the same by way of Writ Petition  No.15205 of 2017 before the High Court of Madras, which was ultimately  Page 13 of 23 HC-NIC Page 13 of 23 Created On Tue Nov 14 22:56:33 IST 2017 C/LPA/1914/2017 JUDGMENT dismissed as withdrawn.   Further by taking us to the order No.2 of 2016  passed by the 3rd respondent, it is submitted that fixation of tariff at Rs.4.19  per kWh is only ceiling tariff and the Commission  itself has decided that  such procurement  of  power  has  to be  done  through  competitive  bidding  process as required under section 63 of the Act.  It is submitted that process  initiated   is   in   the   interest   of   consumers,   which   is   the   main   object   of  Electricity Act, 2003 and bidding process undertaken by the 1st respondent  and approved by the 3rd respondent is in conformity with the Electricity Act,  2003. It is submitted that the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge  are   in   conformity   with   the   law   on   the   subject,   and   both   the   judgments  relied by the appellant will not render any assistance in support of their  case.   Learned Senior Counsel referred to certain observations of the very  same judgments in support of his arguments.

[13] Having   heard   learned   Counsel   for   the   appellant,   we   have  perused the detailed order passed by the learned Single Judge and other  material   placed   on   record.   The   Electricity   Act,   2003   is   enacted   to  consolidate   the   laws   relating   to   generation,   transmission,   distribution,  trading   and   use   of   electricity   and   for   taking   measures   conducive   to  development   of   electricity   industry,   promoting   competition   therein,  protecting interest of consumers and supply of electricity to all areas etc. It  is true that under Section 3 of the Act, Central Government is empowered  to notify National Electricity Policy and Tariff Policy in consultation with  the   State   Government   and   section   62   and   63   of   the   Act   deals   with   the  Page 14 of 23 HC-NIC Page 14 of 23 Created On Tue Nov 14 22:56:33 IST 2017 C/LPA/1914/2017 JUDGMENT determination   of   tariff.   Under   Section   62   of   the   Act,   Commission   is  empowered to determine tariff in accordance with the provisions of the Act  and under Section 63 of the Act, Commission is empowered to adopt the  tariff,   if   such   tariff   has   been   determined   through   transparent   process   of  bidding   in   accordance   with   the   guidelines   issued   by   the   Central  Government.   Power   conferred   under   the   Section   63,   is   notwithstanding  anything contained in section 62 of the Act. 

[14] It is not in dispute that there are draft guidelines issued by the  Ministry of Power. Before undertaking bidding process for determination of  tariff  under  Section  63 of  the  Act,   order  No.2  of   2016  is  passed  by  the  Gujarat   Electricity   Regulatory   Commission.     In   the   order   itself,   while  determining tariff at Rs.4.19 kWh, the Commission has observed that as per  the   provisions   of   the   Tariff   policy,   procurement   from   renewable   energy  projects   by   distribution   licensees   is   recommended   through   competitive  bidding  to  keep  the   tariff   low   and  it  is   specifically  observed  in   the  said  order   that   it   is   open   for   the   distribution   licensees   to   approach   the  Commission   for   adoption   of   the   tariff   discovered   through   competitive  bidding process. It is also observed that in such cases, tariff determined by  the Commission in the order No.2 of 2016 will act as a ceiling tariff. [15] Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Thakore referred to tariff policy  dated 28.01.2016 and has mainly relied on clause 6.4 of the policy, which  relates to renewable  source of energy generation  including  co­generation  Page 15 of 23 HC-NIC Page 15 of 23 Created On Tue Nov 14 22:56:33 IST 2017 C/LPA/1914/2017 JUDGMENT from renewable energy sources.  It is contended that as per the said policy,  State   shall   endevour   to   procure   power   from   renewable   energy   sources  through competitive bidding to keep the tariff low and same has to be done  from   the   date   to   be   notified   by   the   Central   Government.   It   is   further  submitted that till  such  notification is notified, the procurement of power  from renewable energy source projects has to be done under Section 62 of  the said Act. Section 63 of the Act, which empowers determination of tariff  by bidding process notwithstanding anything contained under section 62 of  the Act, does not speak of any provisional or final guidelines issued by the  Central   Government.   It   is   not   in   dispute   that   there   are   provisional  guidelines   /   Standard   Bidding   Documents   issued   by   the   Central  Government, which are in force.

[16] Draft guidelines issued by the Ministry of New and Renewable  Energy itself recognizes that in case of  ongoing bidding process, if the bids  have   already   been   submitted   by   bidders   prior   to   the   notification   of   the  Guidelines   and/or   SBDs,   and   if   there   are   any   deviations   between   the  Guidelines and/or the SBDs and the proposed RfS, PPA, PSA (if applicable),  the RfS, PPA and the PSA shall prevail. In view of such guidelines, it cannot  be said that 1st  respondent cannot undertake competitive bidding process  for determination  of tariff in exercise of powers under Section  63 of the  Act, more particularly in absence of any provisional or final guidelines. If at  all any final guidelines are not issued, provisional guidelines can be acted  upon.   Policy framed under Section 3 of the Act is general  policy by the  Page 16 of 23 HC-NIC Page 16 of 23 Created On Tue Nov 14 22:56:33 IST 2017 C/LPA/1914/2017 JUDGMENT Central Government and in view of availability of draft guidelines issued by  the   Ministry   of   New   and   Renewable   Energy,   it   cannot   be   said   that   no  bidding  process could be undertaken  by the 1st  respondent. Such process  undertaken is in the interest of consumers and even tariff order passed by  3rd respondent Commission in Order No.2 of 2016 also clearly recommends  for   taking   steps   for   competitive   bidding   process   by   the   licensees   as  contemplated   under   Section   63  of   the   Act.     In  view  of   draft   guidelines,  powers conferred under Section 63 and the functions of the Commission as  contemplated   under   Section   86   of   the   Act,   it   cannot   be   said   that   such  process undertaken by the 1st respondent is without any authority of law. [17] Ministry of New and Renewable  Energy has issued the draft  guidelines  for  procurement  of  wind   power.   Relevant   para  5.1  under   the  head   "Preparation   for   inviting   bid   and   project   preparedness"   reads   as  under :­ "5.   PREPARATION   FOR   INVITING   BID   AND   PROJECT   PREPAREDNESS The Procurer shall meet the following conditions:

5.1. Bid Documentation:
a)   Prepare   the   bid   documents   in   accordance   with   these   Guidelines and Standard Bidding Documents (SBDs) [consisting   of   Model   Request   for   Selection   (RfS)   Document,   Model   Power  Purchase   Agreement   (PPA)   and   Model   Power   Sale   Agreement   (PSA)], notified by the Central Government, except as provided   in sub clause (c) below.
b) Inform the Appropriate Commission about the initiation of   Page 17 of 23 HC-NIC Page 17 of 23 Created On Tue Nov 14 22:56:33 IST 2017 C/LPA/1914/2017 JUDGMENT the bidding process.
c) Seek approval of the Appropriate Commission for deviations,   if any, in the draft RfS draft PPA, draft PSA (if applicable) from   these Guidelines and/ or SBDs, in accordance with the process   described in Clause 18 of these Draft for Discussion Guidelines.

i.   However,   till   the   time   the   SBDs   are   notified   by   the   Central Government, for purpose of clarity, if the Procurer   while preparing the draft RfS, draft PPA, draft PSA and   other Project agreements provides detailed provisions that  are consistent with the Guidelines, such detailing will not   be   considered   as   deviations   from   these   Guidelines   even   though such details are not provided in the Guidelines. ii. Further, in case of an ongoing bidding process, if the   bids have already been submitted by bidders prior to the   notification of these Guidelines and/or SBDs, then if there   are any deviations between these Guidelines and/or the   SBDs and the proposed RfS, PPA, PSA (if applicable), the   RfS, PPA and the PSA shall prevail.

d) In case of intermediary procurer, clearance from distribution   licensee(s) on the draft RfS, PPA and PSA having details specific   to the proposed procurement."

[18] Learned Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the  case of Energy Watchdog (supra).  In the said case,  the Adani Power, after  entering   into   the   power   purchase   agreement   and   supplementary   power  purchase agreement in the year 2007 with GUVNL in the State of Gujarat  and Haryana Utilities in the State of Haryana for the supply of power from  the power project at Mundra Power Project, Gujarat, under Section 63 of  the   Act,   had   filed   the   petition   before   the   Central   Electricity   Regulatory  Page 18 of 23 HC-NIC Page 18 of 23 Created On Tue Nov 14 22:56:33 IST 2017 C/LPA/1914/2017 JUDGMENT Commission under Section 79 of the Act, seeking redressal on the ground of  Force Majeur and/or change in law in Indonesia and the appellate Tribunal  has passed the order remanding the matter to the Commission by holding  that the generation and the sale of power by Adani Power to GUVNL and  the   Haryana   Utilities   was   the   composite   claim   within   the   meaning   of  Section 79(1)(b) of the said Act. Said order came to be challenged before  the Hon'ble Supreme Court. While interpreting provisions of section 63 of  the Act, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in para 18 and 19 as under :­ "18.   The   construction   of   Section   63,   when   read   with   the   other   provisions   of   this   Act,   is   what   comes   up   for   decision   in   the   present appeals. It may be noticed that Section 63 begins with a   nonobstante clause, but it is a nonobstante clause covering only   Section 62. Secondly, unlike Section 62 read with Sections 61  and 64, the appropriate Commission does not "determine" tariff   but only "adopts" tariff already  determined under Section 63.   Thirdly,   such   "adoption"   is   only   if   such   tariff   has   been   determined   through   a   transparent   process   of   bidding,   and,   fourthly,   this   transparent   process   of   bidding   must   be   in  accordance   with   the   guidelines   issued   by   the   Central   Government. What has been argued before us is that Section 63   is a stand alone provision and has to be construed on its own   terms, and  that,  therefore,  in  the case  of transparent  bidding   nothing can be looked at except the bid itself which must accord   with guidelines issued by the Central Government. One thing is  immediately clear, that the appropriate Commission does not act   as a mere post office under Section 63. It must adopt the tariff  which   has   been   determined   through   a   transparent   process   of   Page 19 of 23 HC-NIC Page 19 of 23 Created On Tue Nov 14 22:56:33 IST 2017 C/LPA/1914/2017 JUDGMENT bidding,   but   this   can   only   be   done   in   accordance   with   the   guidelines   issued   by   the   Central   Government.   Guidelines   have   been issued under this Section on 19th January, 2005, which   guidelines have been amended from time to time. Clause 4, in   particular,   deals   with   tariff   and   the   appropriate   Commission   certainly   has   the   jurisdiction   to   look   into   whether   the   tariff   determined through the process of bidding accords with clause 4.

19. It is important to note that the regulatory powers of the Central   Commission,   so   far   as   tariff   is   concerned,   are   specifically   mentioned in Section 79(1). This regulatory power is a general   one, and it is very difficult to state that when the Commission   adopts  tariff under Section  63,  it functions dehors  its  general   regulatory power under Section 79(1)(b). For one thing, such   regulation   takes   place   under   the   Central   Government's   guidelines.   For   another,   in   a   situation   where   there   are   no   guidelines   or   in   a   situation   which   is   not   covered   by   the   guidelines,   can   it   be   said   that   the   Commission's   power   to   "regulate" tariff is completely done away with? According to us,   this   is   not   a   correct   way   of   reading   the   aforesaid   statutory   provisions. The first rule of statutory interpretation is that the   statute must be read as a whole. As a concomitant of that rule, it  is also clear that all the discordant notes struck by the various   Sections   must   be   harmonized.   Considering   the   fact   that   the   nonobstante clause advisedly restricts itself to Section 62, we see   no good reason to put Section 79 out of the way altogether. The  reason why Section 62 alone has been put out of the way is that   determination of tariff can take place in one of two ways - either   under Section 62, where the Commission itself determines the   tariff in accordance with the provisions of the Act, (after laying   Page 20 of 23 HC-NIC Page 20 of 23 Created On Tue Nov 14 22:56:33 IST 2017 C/LPA/1914/2017 JUDGMENT down   the   terms   and   conditions   for   determination   of   tariff  mentioned   in   Section   61)   or   under   Section   63   where   the   Commission   adopts   tariff   that   is   already   determined   by   a   transparent   process   of   bidding.   In   either   case,   the   general   regulatory power of the Commission under Section 79(1)(b) is   the source of the power to regulate, which includes the power to   determine or adopt tariff. In fact, Sections 62 and 63 deal with   "determination"   of   tariff,   which   is   part   of   "regulating"   tariff.  Whereas   "determining"   tariff   for   interState   transmission   of   electricity is dealt with by Section 79(1)(d)Section 79(1)(b) is  a wider source of power to "regulate" tariff. It is clear that in a   situation where the guidelines issued by the Central Government   under Section 63 cover the situation, the Central Commission is   bound   by   those   guidelines   and   must   exercise   its   regulatory   functions,   albeit   under   Section   79(1)(b),   only   in   accordance   with those guidelines. As has been stated above, it is only in a   situation where there are no guidelines framed at all or where   the   guidelines   do   not   deal   with   a   given   situation   that   the   Commission's general regulatory powers under Section 79(1)(b)   can then be used."

[19] In the case of Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited (supra), the  Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the issue whether the Commission  had   the   inherent   powers   to   extend   the   control   period   and   held   that  Commission being a creature of statute cannot assume to itself any powers,  which are not otherwise conferred on it.  The Hon'ble Supreme Court has  held in para 35 as under :­ "35.  This Court should be specially careful in dealing with matters of  Page 21 of 23 HC-NIC Page 21 of 23 Created On Tue Nov 14 22:56:33 IST 2017 C/LPA/1914/2017 JUDGMENT exercise of inherent powers when the interest of consumers is at   stake. The interest of consumers, as an objective, can be clearly   ascertained   from   the   Act.   The   Preamble   of   the   Act   mentions   "protecting   interest   of   consumers"   and   Section   61(d)   requires   that the interests of the consumers are to be safeguarded when   the Appropriate Commission specifies the terms and conditions   for determination of tariff. Under Section 64 read with Section   62, determination of tariff is to be made only after considering   all suggestions and objections received from the public. Hence,   the generic tariff once determined under the statute with notice   to   the   public   can   be   amended   only   by   following   the   same   procedure.   Therefore,   the   approach   of   this   Court   ought   to   be   cautious and guarded when the decision has its bearing on the   consumers."

[20] We have carefully considered  the plea of the appellant with  reference to the view taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid  judgments. We are of the considered view that both the judgments relied by  the appellant would not render any assistance to the appellant.  [21] As power is exercised by the State Commission under Section  86 of the Act while passing impugned order dated 06.10.2017, we are of  the view no error is committed by the State Commission, in as much as it is  clearly held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Energy Watchdog  (supra)   that   where   there   are   no   guidelines   framed   at   all   or   where   the  guidelines do not deal with a given situation, the Commission's power is  not curtailed.  Same view is to be applied in the present case, more so when  Page 22 of 23 HC-NIC Page 22 of 23 Created On Tue Nov 14 22:56:33 IST 2017 C/LPA/1914/2017 JUDGMENT draft guidelines are covering the field. 

[22] For   the   aforesaid   reasons   and   having   regard   to   reasons  recorded by the learned Single Judge, we are of the view that no error is  committed by the learned Single Judge so as to interfere with the same in  this appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent. [23] Letters Patent Appeal is devoid of merits and accordingly, it is  dismissed   at   the   stage   of   admission.   Consequently,   the   Civil   Application  stands disposed of. Interim relief granted earlier, if any, stands vacated.

(R. SUBHASH REDDY, CJ)  (VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.)  satish Page 23 of 23 HC-NIC Page 23 of 23 Created On Tue Nov 14 22:56:33 IST 2017